• Susie
  • Susie

    If Anaheim property owners or short term rentals decides to continue to rent short term after August 11 2016, they face steep fines anyway and will lose their permits right away anyway if they don’t meet the many new strict guideline requirements by August 11. They will be sending city inspectors out to pop in audit “check up” on properties from August 11 on to see if the properties that continue to operate are in compliance with all the new requirements to stay in business during the phase out 18 month period. Some of these new code requirements that must be installed and in place inside the short term rental homes by August 11 include:
    Property must have installed an extensive indoor fire sprinkler systems throughout the interior of the home & in the bedrooms for safely to meet the fire dept codes.
    Property must have installed exit doors in each of the bedrooms for emergency exits, to name a few plus many more costly upgrades. If these aren’t in place upon inspections, the owners will get massive fines and lose their permit licenses anyway for not following the laws of these new requirements to be operating as a rental during the next 18 months.
    Who would want to incur all these costs to install indoor plumbing pipes sprinkler systems throughout the attics/ceilings, and tear down walls, framing, stucco, to reframe the house in order to install new doors in each bedroom, and many more expensive retrofit major construction upgrades just to get an extra 1-18 months of rentals? Not us. Even if someone does decide to incur all these costs to risk staying open for 18 more months, they have to pay for costly city permits and pass inspections by the city to make sure they are meeting all the strict building codes as well, a whole other set of codes and requirements. It’s just not worth it. If they come out and all this isn’t in place to their standards, they revoke the permit anyway.

  • Susie

    ort term after August 11 2016, they face steep fines anyway and will lose their permits right away anyway if they don’t meet the many new strict guideline requirements by August 11. They will be sending city inspectors out to pop in audit “check up” on properties from August 11 on to see if the properties that continue to operate are in compliance with all the new requirements to stay in business during the phase out 18 month period. Some of these new code requirements that must be installed and in place inside the short term rental homes by August 11 include:
    Property must have installed an extensive indoor fire sprinkler systems throughout the interior of the home & in the bedrooms for safely to meet the fire dept codes.
    Property must have installed exit doors in each of the bedrooms for emergency exits, to name a few plus many more costly upgrades. If these aren’t in place upon inspections, the owners will get massive fines and lose their permit licenses anyway for not following the laws of these new requirements to be operating as a rental during the next 18 months.
    Who would want to incur all these costs to install indoor plumbing pipes sprinkler systems throughout the attics/ceilings, and tear down walls, framing, stucco, to reframe the house in order to install new doors in each bedroom, and many more expensive retrofit major construction upgrades just to get an extra 1-18 months of rentals? Not us. Even if someone does decide to incur all these costs to risk staying open for 18 more months, they have to pay for costly city permits and pass inspections by the city to make sure they are meeting all the strict building codes as well, a whole other set of codes and requirements. It’s just not worth it. If they come out and all this isn’t in place to their standards, they revoke the permit anyway.

  • David Zenger

    How funny. A bunch of people want to be paid off, ahem, amortized, for costs incurred mostly when their “investments” were ILLEGAL.

    Oh, my, a brand new “property right” has been discovered in a terrible mistake concocted by the city government.

  • Jacki Livingston

    Hmmm, now I see. The union thugs are involved. Now it makes sense. Families need to stop spending their money in Anaheim, especially Disneyland. Overpriced, low value, bad food and worse hotels…families need to go elsewhere. Clearly, they don’t want our dollars, anymore.

  • kburgoyne

    The solution to all of this turmoil over AirBNB, Uber, Lyft, etc, is to really enforce the commercial codes.
    Residential areas are not zoned for commercial activity for a very good reason, and that should be enforced — PERIOD. People who want to drive for Uber should be commercially licensed because they are engage in a commercial activity — PERIOD.

    This approach does not discriminate against any given service, it simply places all the services on a level playing field. I’m fine with Uber so long as it doesn’t make its money by trying to sidestep commercial licensing requirements. Uber, taxis, etc, should all be required to meet the same commercial requirements. Once that’s true, if Uber gives taxis a hard time then it simply means taxis need to step up their game. Some of the taxis have, in fact, been stepping up their game with smartphone apps, etc.

    Likewise AirBNB cannot be allowed to make its money sidestepping commercial room rental requirements. As for AirBNB in apartment complexes in commercially zoned areas which could just as easily permit hotels, well… that’s a level playing field. After all, if the zoning permits hotels then the area in which a person lives does in fact permit hotels.

    Whether a given apartment complex is mixed-use should probably best be handled by there being a requirement that potential renters be told before renting that short-term “hotel style” rentals are permitted in the complex. If the renters don’t like it, and the zoning permits hotels, then the renters should seek an apartment elsewhere.

    If it produces decreased demand for the apartments then the owner will be faced with deciding if the short term rentals offset the decreased revenue from long term rentals. As for somebody renting an apartment to then turn around and re-rent it on AirBNB, that’s primarily between the apartment complex owner and the renter and something to be handled by the rental agreement — provided the apartment is in a zone permitting hotels.

    Of course I understand this does lead to a potential decrease in available apartment space.

  • kburgoyne

    I envision this as being a rather amusing coalition between residents and the resort hotel owners. I rather doubt the city council would have listened so quickly to the residents, but I suspect they’ve been assured a pat on the back (and/or wallet) from the resort hotel owners.

    Not sure if Disney would have bothered to weigh-in directly. They probably don’t see AirBNB as a significant threat to their hotels. Somebody is going to pay the price to stay at one of the Disney hotels primarily because it is a Disney themed hotel, otherwise they’d be staying at one of the surrounding hotels.

    DLR is not like WDW. There is “some” convenience to staying at a DLR hotel, but the DLR parks being immediately adjacent to the outlying hotels reduces the convenience difference. With WDW being its own huge property, there is somewhat more convenience benefit to staying at a Disney hotel in WDW.

    Thus WDW has low-end priced hotels along with mid-range and high-end hotels. DLR doesn’t bother with low-end priced hotels because its not worth it to Disney to waste the land on a low-end hotel. People who want a low price can easily find rooms at nearby hotels. Disney’s better off reserving its far more costly per acre DLR land for higher priced hotels and other uses.

  • Paul Lucas

    cheers to the residents of Anaheim.